Party elite discursive repertoires of globalisation, Europeanisation

Party elite discursive repertoires of globalisation, Europeanisation and
immigration in France : party system dynamics and the political manufacturing
of inexorability and exogenous constraints
Workshop on ‘Mapping Elite Attitudes to Globalisation, European Integration and
Regionalisation’
ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Nicosia 2006
Gilles Ivaldi *
FIRST DRAFT – Comments welcome
Introduction
Besides showing a rising tide of Euroscepticism in France’s traditionally pro-EU public
opinion, the decisive rejection of the European Constitutional Treaty by a significant majority
of voters in the May 2005 referendum bore testimony to the profound transformation
undergone by the French party system over the past twenty years, as a not so distant echo to
the dramatic expression of public discontent and dissatisfaction which had led to the political
earthquake of 21 April 2002. While still a ‘sleeping giant’ (we borrow the expression from
Van der Eijk and Franklin, 2004) embedded in some of the socio-economic issues that
presided over the 2002 presidential contest (Belot & Cautrès 2004), European integration
came to the forefront of party competition in the 2005 referendum, again in relation to salient
issues of first-order electoral politics such as unemployment or the protection of France’s
most cherished public services, but also as part of a broader set of representations
encompassing a wider range of international issues, most notably economic globalisation and
immigration.
The purpose of this paper is to explore and discuss French party elites’ attitudes to European
integration and to contrast them with partisan discursive constructions of economic
globalisation, on the one hand, and immigration, on the other, in the specific context of the
post-ECT referendum. We look at how these ‘active’ sets of subjective images – as resources
in struggle (Dean, 2003)– interact with the domestic political agenda and the electoral
dynamics of first-order politics. In this, we follow and expand the recent call by Peter Mair
with regard to the study of political parties and elites’ attitudes towards Europe. According to
Mair: “in addition to the imputed location of a party’s core identity, and in addition to the
evidence provided by the formal policies which it adopts or is obliged to adopt, we need to
know more about how Europe actually plays in national political discourse, as well as about
the way in which it is conceived” (Mair, 2006).
*
CNRS Research Officer (URMIS-University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis). Address for correspondence: URMIS,
Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis, Pôle Universitaire Saint-Jean d'Angely, 24 avenue des Diables Bleus,
06357 - NICE Cedex 4 - FRANCE. [email protected].
1
A project still in its embryonic stage, the main focus here is on the heuristic approach that can
be used in the exploratory study of partisan attitudes, with a clear view to assessing its
pertinence prior to a more systematic textual corpus analysis 1, and to confront it with
comparable attempts at mapping attitudinal preferences at party level in Western Europe and
elsewhere (hence the participation in the ECPR workshop). An extension of Mair’s argument
on Europe to globalisation and immigration, and an attempt to combine party system
approach with the social constructivist perspective underpinning critical discourse analysis
(Fairclough & Thomas, 2004), this paper builds upon the concept of discursive repertoires –
defined as articulated ideational formations produced and deployed interactively through the
combination of discourses available to social actors operating in a given field (Bourdieu,
1977; Campbell, 2002; Korteweg, 2003)– to which partisan elites can have recourse under
specific party system constraints and/or windows of opportunity for the purpose of mass
mobilisation. From this party system perspective, the study of party-based attitudes to
immigration, economic globalisation and Europe shall therefore look at the extant sets of
discursive accounts upon which political actors may draw to maximise their appeal to voters
in the first order arena, within the boundaries set by the necessity to achieve a politically
acceptable level of ideological consistency and policy-homogeneity to avoid dissonance with
their core value system and that of their traditional electoral constituency.
Levels of analysis
The first section of the paper concentrates on various processes of productive discursive
activity and semiotic practices, with a focus on the co-ordinative and communicative
functions of discourse in the electoral arena. We try to examine how specific contextual event
configurations trigger the formulation of adaptative strategies by political leaders, the process
of discourse-policy disconnect, role-play and the tactical fragmentation of party discourse, recontextualisation, as well as the processes of responsibility displacement, ideological reappropriation (isomorphism) and de-ideologisation. One particularly interesting aspect of
looking at images of immigration, globalisation and European integration built by partisan
elites in support of the various narratives developed in the area of electoral competition is
how such issues have been progressively incorporated into domestic politics through the
political fabrication of exogenous constraints and inevitable processes which pose a threat to
France’s historical model of social prosperity, cultural identity and national sovereignty. In
doing so, we seek to provide elements for a possible characterisation of globalisation,
immigration and European issues in terms of their status and function within contemporary
French public debate.
Second, the paper suggests a number of hypotheses with regards to some of the most
significant elements of permanence and change in party system dynamics and structures of
political opportunities –in a broad sense– which help account for the above construction and
use of discursive repertoires of globalisation, immigration and European integration by
French partisan elites. In particular, the analysis points to the centrality of ‘unemployment’
1
Textual sources will include all parliamentary debates in the Senate and National Assembly, party manifestos on the
European Constitutional Treaty and all party documents about European issues, economic globalisation and immigration in
general, landmark and key speeches by political leaders as well as party congress voting statistics wherever relevant to the
analysis. Although focused mainly on national party elites –either represented in French Parliament or not– the project will
also present some data on interest groups (business, trade unions), public opinion and the many social movements and
organisations that took part in the nationwide debate over the ECT referendum in 2005. Another interesting avenue for the
analysis of political discourse in France is that of all leaders’ personal blogs on the internet.
2
issues in public debate and the limits imposed by general perceptions of the lack of
responsiveness by governmental elites. The emphasis is on the dramatic impact of the
emergence and institutionalisation of populist anti-system and protest actors on both the left
and right margins of mainstream politics, and the consequent development of unrealistic
social demands and expectations in French public opinion, which continue to frame the space
for political competition and contribute to artificially expand the realms of possibility thereby
undermining mainstream transformative efforts to address effectively some of the most salient
socio-economic issues.
1. Discourse in action: manufacturing political representations of globalisation,
immigration and European integration
In Michel Foucault’s terms, “discursive practices are characterised by the delimitation of a
field of objects, the definition of a legitimate perspective for the agent of knowledge, and the
fixing of norms for the elaboration of concepts and theories. Thus each discursive practice
implies a play of prescriptions that designate exclusions and choices” (Foucault, 1977, p.199).
In French political debate, complex phenomena such as globalisation, immigration and
European integration are linguistically represented by party elites often in an over-simplified
version of inevitable and exogenous processes implying particular sets of constraints that
would have a direct impact on France’s traditional model of welfare, cultural identity and
national sovereignty. Through the magnifying lenses of this inward-looking and selfprotective approach, the ‘play of prescriptions’ remains fairly limited in scope, particularly
with regard to immigration and globalisation.
Globalisation, immigration: threats to French social prosperity
Economic globalisation has been traditionally conceived as a threat to the French post-war
model of social welfare rather than a chance (Berger, 2000; Hanley, 2001; Meunier, 2003),
with the notable exception of the business organisation (MEDEF, formerly CNPF) and the
outspoken neo-liberal minority groups of the parliamentary right. Despite France’s
established competitiveness and successful adaptation to the requirements and exigencies of
the new world economy (Meunier & Gordon, 2001), globalisation can be specified as a
negative-valence issue in the context of the national public debate on economics, societal
pessimism and growing electoral demand for social protection arising from the public
(mis)perception of France’s vulnerability vis-à-vis global business. The strong negative
connotation of economic globalisation and internationalisation of capital markets –as
inexorable and destructive forces behind the interests of multinational corporations–, whose
effects must be curbed through regulated capitalism, continues to reduce the range of possible
competing interpretative discourses. The narrative ‘score’ made available to partisan elites all
across the political spectrum remains very limited in scope if not simply a recitativo obligato
of economic protectionism and social protection. The construction of a negative perception of
globalisation was particularly evident from the deployment of elites’ narrative stories of the
world economy during and immediately after the ECT-referendum campaign, as illustrated
for instance by the UMP calls for preferential access agreements at EU level or the strong
anti-globalisation stance accommodated by the PS in the final synthesis of the party congress
held in Le Mans in November 2005, which echoed some of the most resolute anti-liberal
rhetoric of the naysayers.
3
Nous combattons la logique libérale actuelle de la mondialisation et son cortège de dérégulations,
déréglementations, libéralisations, privatisations, précarisation (…) Toute notre démarche consiste à
maîtriser, réguler, encadrer le marché pour faire valoir l’intérêt général (…) L’enjeu c’est donc de prendre
les mesures concrètes et utiles pour combattre la marchandisation. C’est d’apporter, par la fiscalité, le droit
social et les services publics, protection et correction (Réussir à gauche, Parti socialiste, 18.11.2005).
Cette ambition, ce doit être de maîtriser la mondialisation, d’aider les pays européens à en tirer tous les
avantages qu’elle procure, mais sans livrer les peuples aux dérives qu’elle recèle. L’Europe doit à la fois
accompagner la mondialisation, la maîtriser et en protéger (Nicolas Sarkozy, Convention pour un projet
populaire, 24.09.2005).
The strict boundaries that continue to exist around the discursive productions of economic
globalisation by mainstream party leaders in France, particularly on the right of the political
axis, are well in evidence when contrasted with the clear pro-market and liberal orientation in
the Réformateurs minority faction led by MP Hervé Novelli and former PR leader and
Senator Gérard Longuet within the UMP, or Ernest-Antoine Seillière, former President of the
French MEDEF and now President of the Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations
of Europe (UNICE).
La mondialisation : personne ne dit, aujourd'hui, que c'est une chance extraordinaire pour tous les pays, pour
des dizaines de millions de personnes qui sortent du sous-développement grâce à cette mondialisation. (…)
Pour moi, le premier patriote économique, c'est celui qui donne les meilleures conditions de développement
aux entreprises en matière de fiscalité, en matière de réglementation. Aujourd'hui, en France, on est loin du
compte. La mondialisation, c'est la capacité à se projeter vers l'extérieur, non pas à se protéger. (Hervé
Novelli, UMP, RTL, 09.03.2006)
We call on you to resist any kind of “protectionism” that discourages cross-border coming together of
companies. This is a real danger but I guess it will not prevent the many takeovers, acquisitions and
alliances that companies will launch in Europe, because of the strategic needs of competition and
globalisation. We call on the European Commission to watch out and ensure that EU Treaties are respected.
The Commission must also take strong action against those Member States that infringe existing Internal
Market Directives (Ernest-Antoine Seillière, President of UNICE, European Council, 23 March 2006).
A key element in the discursive formation of globalisation as a threat, the recurrent process of
adequation between globalisation of the economy and the issue of job relocations outside of
France is, as shall be suggested, intrinsically related to the centrality of ‘unemployment’ as
one of the most salient issues topping the political agenda. With regard to processes, one
central element inherent in the role taking by partisan actors and the ‘political spectacle’ –i.e.
the creation and circulation of symbols in the political process (Huysmans, 2000, p.762)– of
globalisation is that of specific contextual event configurations that trigger the formulation of
discursive strategies. In particular, the focus should be on the social construction of company
job relocations, hostile take-over bids from foreign investors (e.g. ARCELOR-Mittal Steel in
January 2006 or Gaz de France / Suez in February), the closing down of production units in
France (Hewlett Packard in September 2005, SEB in January 2006) or the total or partial
privatisation of State-owned companies (SNCM and EDF in October 2005; ‘preventive’
strikes by the SNCF in November) by the media, trade unions, politicians and other actors
from within the civil society, and the systematic causal link established between such
crystallising events and what is publicised as the iron law of global economy and the yoke of
shareholders capitalism.
Similar conclusions apply to the way in which immigration has prominently featured on
France’s political agenda over the past two decades and the significant shift towards
centripetal convergence by mainstream party elites towards common negative understandings
of immigration as a menace, in line with the broad development of a ‘Fortress Europe’
4
approach at EU level. In October 2005, the tragic events and subsequent problematisation of
illegal immigration in the Spanish city enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the Moroccan coast
came in line with the flow of arguments for the need to reinforce outside borders against the
growing risk of massive incoming flows of immigrants.
Le monde est confronté à la montée des pressions migratoires. L'Europe est en première ligne, comme
l'illustrent Ceuta et Melilla, Lampedusa ou Mayotte. Elle doit fonder sa réponse sur une vision d'ensemble
qui intègre sécurité et développement, dans le respect de la dignité humaine. Le renforcement du contrôle
des frontières de l'Union et la conclusion d'accords de réadmission efficaces pour assurer le retour des
immigrés clandestins sont une exigence (Jacques Chirac, Le Figaro, 26 October 2005).
Again, the intersection between immigration issues and the many public concerns over
France’s employment situation and capacity to secure welfare provisions has formed a
constitutive figure of mainstream political discourses on immigration as early as 1981, which
has progressively acquired some of the typical elements characteristic of a consensual
negative issue. By placing the emphasis on the need to move from ‘immigration subie’ to
‘immigration choisie’, the provisional immigration Bill proposed by Ministry of Interior
Nicolas Sarkozy in February 2006 provided further evidence of the almost exclusive
allocation of a negative meaning to immigration in relation to broad socio-economic issues.
Solidarité, dignité, tels sont aussi les principes de notre politique envers les travailleurs étrangers. Les
expulsions ont été suspendues. La place et les droits de ces travailleurs doivent être pleinement
reconnus...Toutefois, compte tenu de la situation de l'emploi, la France n'est pas en état d'accueillir un
nombre croissant de travailleurs étrangers» (Pierre Mauroy, July 1981).
Aujourd'hui je le dis clairement la France n'est plus, ne peut plus être, une terre d 'immigration. Je l'ai déjà
dit et je le réaffirme : "nous ne pouvons accueillir toute la misère du monde" (Michel Rocard, 07.01.1990).
Le système d’intégration à la française ne fonctionne plus. L’une des raisons majeures de ce
dysfonctionnement, c’est l’incapacité dans laquelle la France s’est trouvée de maîtriser les flux migratoires
depuis 1974 (…) emporté par le nombre grandissant d’une immigration irrégulière qui a conduit à une
paupérisation de cette population, à la constitution de véritables ghettos, à la paralysie et au détournement du
système (Nicolas Sarkozy, Le Journal du Dimanche, 05.02.2006).
Challenges to the State, discourse-policy disconnect and the ‘politics of embarrassment’
Socially constructed as exogenous threats in the cognitive dimension of partisan discourse,
both immigration and economic globalisation represent obvious challenges to the traditional
French model of Statism and political voluntarism, which is crucial to governmentlegitimation in France (Howarth, 2002). In particular, the rhetoric of globalisation is often
based on the de-politicisation of socio-economic fields of activity and the passing of the
nation state in the face of new economic constraints (Wodak & Weiss, 2000). A research
avenue of particular interest is that of the discourse-policy disconnect that exists with regard
to immigration policies, on the one hand, or the many adjustments of the political economy to
meet the requirements of globalisation on the other hand. This points to the essential role of
argumentation in the policy-making and the role of language in explaining policy situations
and preferences in the process of mass communication, as well as the amount of incoherence,
vagueness in description or passing over in silence certain areas of putting policy
recommendations into action (Schmidt 2002: 225-230).
5
The consensual rhetorics of the need to defend the most cherished French model of dirigiste
state-centred economy against the danger of globalisation have been increasingly at variance
with actual governmental policy initiatives of both the Left and Right through tax reform,
privatisation of public companies, liberalisation of trade and deregulation of labour, goods
and services markets (Meunier, 2004; Cohen, 1996; Jefferys, 2003; Levy, 2001). Mainstream
left and right have been to some extent marked by ambivalence in ‘non transformative’ policy
narratives (Schmidt, 2001) and what could be characterised as the ‘politics of embarrassment’
in legitimising and justifying action (or the lack of it). As mentioned earlier, this has become
manifest in the many attempts by all incumbent parties to deal with the highly sensitive issue
of job relocations and the widening gap between their actual relatively limited volume –at an
estimated yearly average of 13,500 jobs over the 1995-2001 period, with about 7,000 in
emerging countries (INSEE, 2005)– and the amount of public debate taking place over each
single occurrence of companies relocating outside of France. This was for instance well
exemplified by the short-lived controversy initiated by trade unions in January 2006 regarding
the possibility for the government to claim back public subsidies allocated to companies in the
event of these choosing to re-locate jobs. This proposal was endorsed formally by PM
Dominique de Villepin in order to formulate a pseudo-coherent stance in a ‘symbolic’ attempt
to avoid political embarrassment and the admission of powerlessness political impotence in
the vein of Lionel Jospin’s widely commented statement that ‘L’Etat ne peut pas tout’ in
reference to the closing down of a Michelin factory in Wolber in 1999.
Another significant area of discourse-policy disconnect –and the political embarrassment by
the mainstream left and right alike that may ultimately arise from it – in relation to economic
globalisation is that of privatisation and the necessary restructuring of French capitalism,
despite the coherence of the industrial project underpinning most of the decisions by
incumbent parties to privatise part or the whole of State-owned companies for the purpose of
forging sustainable strategic alliances (see for instance the analysis of Jospin’s réalisme de
gauche and the voluntarist approach vis-à-vis globalisation by ‘reconciling an enduring
dirigiste dimension with a growing enthusiasm for the market’ (Clift, 2002:477). Irrespective
of the actual motives or possible economic rationale for privatisation, the suspicious and
strong negative connotation associated with the latter notion in the political arena continues to
vindicate any attempt at selling public companies as a move towards economic liberalism and
the symbol of partisan elites surrendering to the rules and diktat by financial markets in the
global world of finance, hence for instance the emergence recently of Villepin’s concept of
‘economic patriotism’, the commitment by the PS in November 2005 to re-nationalise EDF or
the socialist presidential runner Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s idea of ‘temporary
nationalisations’ (15 Propositions, 18.01.2006).
As shall be discussed, one key element in understanding such dynamics of ‘unspeakability’ in
the area of privatisation and, more generally, economic deregulation or flexibility in the
labour market, is the impact of the anti-liberal rhetoric deployed by populist antiestablishment actors and the discursive use of ‘privatisation’ as a marker of the pro-market
conversion by all mainstream parties, through the recurrent process of indifferentiation of the
political class as a whole and the ironing out by anti-system demagogy of the differences that
exist in fact in the political economy of the left and the right. On the right side of the political
spectrum, such strong constraints imposed on the use of discursive repertoires of economic
liberalism have been handled in different ways:
6
1) President Jacques Chirac’s electorally successful yet politically disastrous ideological repositioning in the 1995 presidential on the social-Gaullist theme of reducing the ‘social
fracture’;
La France fut longtemps considérée comme un modèle de mobilité sociale. Certes, tout n'y était pas parfait.
Mais elle connaissait un mouvement continu qui allait dans le bon sens. Or, la sécurité économique et la
certitude du lendemain sont désormais des privilèges. La jeunesse française exprime son désarroi. Une
fracture sociale se creuse dont l'ensemble de la Nation supporte la charge. La "machine France" ne
fonctionne plus. Elle ne fonctionne plus pour tous les Français (Jacques Chirac, Presidential campaign
discourse, 17 February 1995).
2) the recurrent claim by UMP leader Nicolas Sarkozy of a need for a more radical break
away from the traditional French model of social welfare (as rhetorically opposed to the
so-called Anglo-Saxon socio-economy), which was promptly called into question by
Sarkozy’s own tactical and conciliatory approach to popular dissent and left-wing driven
rejection of Villepin’s CPE (first job contract) in April 2006;
Je suis venu ce soir pour vous dire que la rupture avec nos habitudes, nos certitudes, nos conformismes, est
nécessaire, qu'elle est urgente et surtout qu'elle est possible. Nous arrivons à un moment de vérité : les
Français vont devoir choisir entre l'immobilisme et le mouvement (…) Notre responsabilité est immense
parce que les Français sont en train de perdre espoir. Ils constatent l’échec de notre modèle social (…)Voici
pourquoi j'ai proposé la rupture. Je ne veux pas être complice d'un système à bout de souffle que je veux
refonder (Nicolas Sarkozy, Speech in Douai, 27 March 2006).
3) the alternative discursive practice of ‘de-ideologisation’, as a distinctive feature of the
political communication by PM De Villepin since his coming into office in June 2005,
whereby the political economy is described solely as a matter of ‘pragmatism’, if not
simply common sense, with no reference to ideological principles especially where the
latter are regarded as potential ‘markers’ of economic liberalism. As explained by the
Prime Minister with regard to the passing of the Equal opportunity Bill enacting the CPE:
Aujourd'hui, nous sommes au rendez-vous de l'action contre la résignation, du pragmatisme contre
l'idéologie (Dominique de Villepin, Les Echos, 22.02.2006).
Arguably, immigration policies in France have been more consistent with the normative and
cognitive element in the general representation of immigrants as a threat. The alleged need for
self-protection has become particularly salient in political discourse and translated into a
marked shift towards the development of more restrictive immigration policies at both
national and international levels, the reduction of flows and the consequent criminalisation of
illegal immigrants (Givens & Luedtke, 2005; Guiraudon, 2003). Yet there are a number of
comparable elements of discourse-policy disconnect and embarrassment in immigration
politics which ought to be discussed briefly here as they contribute to highlight similar
processes of manufacturing partisan discourses. One first area is that of the regularisation of
illegal immigrants, which since the measures taken in September 1982 by Pierre Mauroy’s
government, has occupied the realm of public debate on immigration and proved a highly
divisive issue. Echoing preceding considerations on political embarrassment, the global
framing of immigration politics in France since the mid-1980s has left very little space for
such mass measures, as was illustrated for instance by Ministry of Interior Jean-Pierre
Chevènement’s waves of regularisations under the Plural Left government from June 1997 to
January 1999, whose political justification was marked at best by discretion if not by silence.
7
The shift towards more draconian immigration policies has been traditionally counterbalanced
with recurrent yet often duplicitous appeals to ensuring greater opportunities for a better
integration of ethnic minorities and a more resolute approach to working against
discriminations in French society. Looking at recent developments, there is some evidence of
the continuation of this double-talk together with a significant reshaping however of the
public debate about immigration around new themes such as migrant quotas in congruence
with the EU 2004 Lisbon Agenda, the re-emergence of the long disputed issue of voting rights
for non-EU citizens in local elections or the opportunity to enact positive discrimination
programs in education and employment. Of particular relevance to the analysis is the strategic
attempt by the UMP to establish its position at both ends of the integrationist / exclusionist
continuum. In the wake of the 2002 presidential ballot, the tactical move by the UMP towards
a harder stance on immigration and law-and-order was clearly considered a vehicle for
winning back those right-wing voters who had defected to the FN in previous elections. This
was accompanied with a process of ideological appropriation and isomorphism as revealed in
the instrumental deployment by Sarkozy of various themes which were in part borrowed
directly from the counter left-libertarian corpus, notably the right for non-EU citizens to vote
in municipal elections.
More importantly, the development of immigration narratives by mainstream actors shows
similar features to those outlined in the case of globalisation. Consistent with the hypothesis
of embarrassment is the absence of a clear stance by the socialist party on the new provisional
Bill on immigration which contrasts for instance with the unambiguous support lent by the PS
to the anti-CPE protest front in February / March 2006. Second, dominant parties are
increasingly relying upon fragmentation in legitimate party discourse, role play in dealing
with sensitive issues and Cardinal de Retz’s axiom once quoted by President Mitterrand that
‘one only avoids ambiguity at one’s cost’. With regard for example to immigration quotas,
there are a variety of positions within the PS national leadership, which ambivalently cover
the entire range of pros –albeit critical– (Boutih, Lang, Aubry, Bockel) and contras
(Rebsamen, Leroux, Mélenchon, Peillon) thereby contributing to increasing the vagueness
and overall inaudibility of the party’s official unitary position. Similarly, the elite positioning
on the November 2005 riots in sub-urban France showed the role played by a number of UMP
cameo role MPs in publicising the most radical discourse on immigration, polygamy or the
implacability of ethno-cultural differences –as opposed to the dominant discourse on social
deprivation and isolation– as an explanation for the upsurge of violence in French suburbs.
Such tactics of de-multiplying channels of political communication have since been
developed into a regular practice by the Sarkozist camp within the UMP, as recently
evidenced for instance by the contribution by the so-called ‘lieutenants’ in undermining the
PM position and delivering a final blow to the CPE in its initial design.
8
European integration: from alternative utopia to performance assessment
Historically, in France, dominant parties have been closely associated with the European
integration process, which from the start has been regarded essentially as an ‘elite-driven’
project with little public legitimacy if not support. Over the years, governmental actors of
both the left and the right have completed their long process of ‘Euro-normalisation’ through
the split with their national sovereignty and Eurosceptic factions (Rey, 2004; Boy et al, 2003;
Haegel, 2002; Bergounioux & Grunberg, 2005) (see for instance the massive support by
mainstream MPs of both the left and right to the ratification of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1999,
Table below). This was especially true of the Gaullist camp which provided an overwhelming
parliamentary majority for the ratification of all European Treaties since 1999 and an
unambiguous support to the ECT through the passing by the national council of the UMP of a
pro-Yes motion with 90.8 per cent of the vote in March 2005.
Table 1. Parliamentary votes and support to European integration (1999-2005)
Votes in favour
Communist*
Radical-Green
Socialist
UDF
RPR / UMP
DL and Independent
Independent**
1999
Ratification of
Amsterdam Treaty
N
%
0
0,0
16
45,7
213
85,2
63
90,0
113
81,9
38
88,4
4
80,0
2001
2005
Ratification of Nice
Constitutional Revision prior
Treaty
to Ratification of TCE
N
%
N
%
0
0,0
0
0,0
12
38,7
––
––
232
91,3
90
60,4
5
7,4
28
90,3
121
87,1
329
90,9
35
81,4
––
––
2
50,0
3
25,0
*In 2005: Communists and ‘Republicains’
**In 2005: the three Independent votes in favour of the constitutional revision were by the Green MPs
One could argue that there is almost an element of inevitability in the public perception of
European integration and the correlative narratives by partisan elites. Since the ratification of
the Maastricht referendum and France’s subsequent participation in the EMU, it is true to say
that European integration has been progressively accepted as an irreversible running process
from which the country could hardly withdraw. In many respects, the permissive consensus
over Europe has been embraced by most political parties in and outside the mainstream,
including far left groupings and right-wing ‘souverainistes’ of the MPF/RPF, the extreme
right Front National being the only notably ‘rejectionist’ party within contemporary French
politics (Ivaldi, 2005).
The ECT-referendum campaign of 2004/05 revealed the amplitude of change in party elites’
attitudes towards Europe since Maastricht, particularly on the left side of the political
spectrum with a clearly more ambivalent support by the Greens and the socialist party –the
latter’s 60.4 per cent support to preliminary constitutional revision in 2005 (see Table above)
echoing the vote by party members in December 2004, which gave a majority of 58.8 per cent
in favour of supporting the European constitutional Treaty. Rather than European integration
itself, what lied at the realm of public debate in the referendum was the increasingly perceived
Europeanisation of French politics. There is an important academic debate about how to best
operationalise the concept of ‘Europeanisation’ for the purpose of comparative empirical
research (Buller & Gamble, 2002; Hix & Goetz, 2000; Featherstone & Radaelli, 2003). We
would argue however that, as an instrumental, symbolic and normative device manoeuvred by
party elites, the notion refers mainly to the process of growing interdependence of the
European and national levels, on the one hand, and to how the move towards European
9
integration and multilevel governance has transformed –and will continue to transform– either
positively or negatively some aspects of domestic politics, on the other hand. Looking more
specifically at the discursive repertoires of Europeanisation by political elites, we would like
to focus on two main processes, namely recontextualisation and responsibility displacement,
which both point to the role by protest actors outside the mainstream in the framing of public
representations of Europeanisation and the formulation of adequate / appropriate responses by
mainstream politicians. The hypothesis here is that those rhetorical processes are core
elements which are constitutive of three main discourse practices on Europeanisation.
Recontextualisation –defined as the dialectical process of bringing into focus movements
between genres and discourses from one network of practices to another (Fairclough &
Thomas, 2004)– is crucial to the understanding of how Europe has been constructed as a
political issue in France –mostly by peripheral actors; it was equally central to the making of
the key policy areas that structured the core of the ECT-referendum campaign on socioeconomic issues rather than EU institutional reform and the extension of qualified majority
voting in the Council of Ministers, the move towards a more politically integrated Europe or
the inclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the Constitutional Treaty (Ivaldi,
2006a). The analysis of the referendum debate shows how the intensive deployment of
representations of globalisation, Europeanisation and immigration by party elites was
tactically intertwined with domestic issues through the specific process of ‘wide-ranging
recontextualisation’. A striking example is that of the political construction of the so-called
Bolkestein draft Directive on Services as a direct threat to France’s highly regulated labour
market prior to the fastening of this particular issue to the broader referendum debate by
directing the affective element in the popular rejection of the directive against the
Constitutional Treaty. A comparable argumentative process was evident from the public
controversy over future accession by Turkey to the European Union and how the latter issue
was articulated with the European constitution, mostly via the successful cunning strategy by
MPF leader Philippe de Villiers. One last example of the production activity at stake during
the referendum campaign was the highly controversial building of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights as a menace to France’s basic principle of secularism and a challenge to women’s right
to abortion.
More generally, one interesting point of contention is the consideration of the ‘strategic and
disingenuous appeal’ to those issues as part of a convenient ‘exercise in responsibilitydisplacement’ (Hay & Rosamond, 2002) –i.e. the attempt by party elites to justify and
legitimate unpalatable socio-economic reforms– and a means of building partly distortive
representations of actual processes of policy making which often distance themselves from
the choices and political preferences expressed by political leaders in the ideational world.
Building upon the notion of Europeanisation as an ‘independent variable in the top-down
sense of being an exogenous constraint imposing policy change’ (Cole, 2001), the emphasis
should be placed on how French governmental elites have purposely fashioned creative and
intentional understandings of the Europeanisation of French polity to account for their own
lack of domestic responsiveness. Following this, the notion of ‘responsibility displacement’
ought to be expanded to include not only processes of policy-making justification under the
constraints imposed by European integration but also the significant utopian element in the
ideological constructs of Europe by mainstream party leaders.
10
Indeed, the positive prospective anticipation of the benefits of European integration and
further pillarisation through France’s growing interdependence with its European partners,
has formed the basis of a mainstream discursive repertoire of the social welfare utopian
alternative to discredited inadequate domestic socio-economic policies and a solution to the
country’s intractable problem of unemployment. This was already a component of the PS
conception of Europe in 1981 and an important element in the subsequent decision to keep
France inside the EMS in 1983.
Pour la France, le moyen le plus sûr de façonner un environnement conforme aux vœux que je viens
d'exprimer, c'est d'abord la construction européenne (…) La vraie tâche qui attend les Européens est d'une
toute autre ampleur. Il s'agit de faire face à la crise, c'est-à-dire au chômage, à la restructuration industrielle
(…) Or, dans ce nouvel environnement économique, l'Europe du libre échange semble paralysée. La
nouvelle division du travail, au bénéfice des sociétés multinationales, se fait sans l'Europe, et même contre
elle (…) Le gouvernement cherchera à donner rapidement corps à l'espace social européen grâce à la
recherche d'une harmonisation progressive des conditions de travail et des droits des travailleurs dans la
Communauté (Pierre Mauroy, Discours Assemblée nationale, 8 juillet 1981).
In 1992, the concept of Europe as a way of promoting prosperity and a rampart against
economic globalisation, social laisser-faire or open market competition was central to
President Mitterrand’s notion of a ‘European social model’ and his strong commitment to
obtaining the inclusion of a social chapter into the Maastricht Treaty, which was echoed in
1997 by the Plural left government rhetoric of the construction of EU-Economic governance
linked to the establishment of a ‘euro-social’ through EU interventionism (Howarth, 2002).
Espoir enfin, et je voudrais y insister, de progrès social en Europe et par l’Europe. Là aussi, Maastricht est
une nouvelle étape (…) En un siècle, l'Europe a inventé, notamment contre la tentation du "laisser-faire,
laisser aller", un modèle social avancé : importance de la négociation collective, haut niveau de protection.
Ce modèle doit être garanti. Né dans une période de plein emploi, il doit être aussi enrichi. Protection des
salariés et insertion des exclus : en un mot cohésion sociale du tissu européen (…) L’Europe c'est le moyen
que nous nous donnons pour maîtriser notre avenir dans le monde. Le maîtriser et non pas le subir, comme
l'envisagent d'autres, qui s'en remettent trop souvent seules forces du marché (…) L’Union économique et
monétaire, c'est l'espoir d'une plus grande croissance. Jacques Delors l'a dit : elle nous permettra de créer
plus d’emplois (Pierre Bérégovoy, Discours Assemblée nationale, 5 mai 1992).
Dans un délai très court, nous avons pu obtenir de tous nos partenaires, d'une part, l'acceptation d'une
résolution sur la croissance et l'emploi venant compléter et équilibrer le pacte de stabilité et, d'autre part, la
tenue d'un sommet exceptionnel consacré à l'emploi (…) La politique que j'entends conduire en matière
européenne, dans le cadre des compétences qui sont les miennes, ira dans le sens d'un renforcement de
l'Union, à condition que celle-ci soit d'abord au service des peuples qui la composent. Nous irons vers une
Europe plus sociale, garante de progrès, de paix et d'indépendance (Lionel Jospin, Discours Assemblée
nationale, 19 juin 1997).
Despite growing public dissatisfaction with Europe, the mainstream positive utopian
repertoire continues to form part of the process of politically legitimating European
integration: see for instance President Chirac’s tribune of October 2005:
Nos pays sont confrontés à de grands défis économiques et sociaux (…) Entre l'illusion du repli sur soi et
l'ivresse de l'ouverture à tous les vents de la mondialisation, l'Europe, unie et rassemblée, constitue le cadre
d'action irremplaçable pour les relever. Elle nous donne la masse critique face aux géants du monde (…)
Face aux conséquences sociales de la mondialisation, notre réponse doit être plus résolue. Quand certaines
grandes entreprises conçoivent leur stratégie à l'échelle mondiale sous la seule contrainte de la rentabilité
financière à court terme et prennent des décisions, par exemple de délocalisation, qui affectent l'emploi dans
l'ensemble de l'Union, nous sommes plus forts en réagissant ensemble (Jacques Chirac, ‘Force et Solidarité :
répondre aux attentes des Européens’, Le Figaro, 20 October 2005).
11
Concurrent with this positive set of representations, a second discursive repertoire of Europe
is that of the EU as an iron collar as opposed to a driving force or a locus for international cooperation and economic growth where France’s national interests would best flourish. Along
this scapegoating line, the elite discourse on Europe is one of recurrent criticism of what is
described as a ‘dysfunctional’ remote bureaucratic system of constraints embodied for
instance in the EMU, the Stability & Growth Pact (SGP) budgetary discipline or the Brussels
Commission’s directives. It is true to say that in France Europeanisation has been used as a
means of justifying unpopular structural changes and reforms, particularly in the highly
sensitive areas of welfare policies, public spending and budgetary austerity (Moreno & Palier,
2004; Kallestrup, 2002). There is a clear evidence for instance of President Chirac’s
ambivalent discourse on the economic constraints imposed upon France by the SGP, and the
call by traditional Gaullists within the UMP parliamentary party for a more flexible
interpretation of the Maastricht criteria in opposition to budgetary orthodoxy as embodied by
Economy and Finance Minister Thierry Breton. Such criticism is similarly implicitly
contained in the socialist idea that the SGP should be transformed into a ‘growth and
employment’ pact at EU level. In the French context, however, the building of this
representation of Europe as an iron collar can be attributed for the largest part to the wide
range of peripheral protest actors on both extremes of the political spectrum, which all
embarked on the Eurosceptic crusade in the early 1990s. Their consistent denigration has
made the most significant contribution to the negative construction of Europe and has fuelled
public discontent. Mainstream parties may in return have been less ‘proactive’ in the
discursive production of this remote system of bureaucratic constraints and have continued to
place themselves on the level of national political voluntarism while ‘benefiting’ indirectly
from the general public perception of their being bound hand and foot by their European
commitments.
Lastly, the 2005 ECT-referendum campaign was mostly structured around a third repertoire
consisting of a negative retrospective performance assessment of the model of socioeconomic multilevel governance and the alleged EU’s inability to secure and deliver the so
long promised public goods, whereby Europeanisation was re-interpreted along the lines of
the dominant socio-economic left / right cleavage of French politics. Within that specific ‘topdown’ system of signification, Europe was epitomised as a non-responsive external agent of
global market capitalism as opposed to the ideal of a political space for workers’ protection
and social cohesion, which formed the core element in the utopian repertoire of Europe. This
shift was due to increasingly interwoven attitudes to Europeanisation and economic
globalisation, on the one hand, and the growing pressure exerted by public opinion and
national demands over macro-economic and social issues – such as unemployment, the risk of
social dumping, job relocation, social welfare public services or the unfair competition with
the new member States–, in line with widespread pessimism in French society and public
concerns with the prolonged economic recession, on the other hand.
Whilst this third repertoire emerged predominantly at the margins of the party system –as yet
another manifestation of the increasing impact of populist protest actors and anti-globalisation
social movements on party competition–, the novelty of the ECT referendum campaign was
that it was endorsed and provided with political legitimacy by a number of mainstream
leaders and civil society representatives in their pursuit of political interests and strategies
within the first-order arena of French politics. This was true for instance of former Prime
Minister Laurent Fabius’s attempt to establish himself as a key leader of the left-wing No
campaign in overt opposition to the official stance taken by the PS fellow members of proYes Rasmussen’s Party of European Socialists (PES); this was equally true of subsequent
12
strategies deployed by socialist leaders of the Yes who were forced to place themselves within
this general conceptual framework of ‘negative’ assessment, as illustrated by Dominique
Strauss-Kahn’s joint comment with leaders of the European Left in January 2006:
Première critique : l'Europe est inefficace. Les citoyens ont le sentiment que l'Europe a échoué sur son
domaine de compétences - l'économie. Ils ont raison (…) Tant que l'Europe existante sera défaillante, les
citoyens refuseront de poursuivre la construction européenne (…) Deuxième critique : l'Europe est
insuffisamment protectrice. Les citoyens sont demandeurs de protections européennes. Parce que cela
correspond à leurs valeurs communes. Et parce qu'ils ont besoin des soutiens nécessaires pour réussir dans
un monde globalisé, plus mouvant, plus exposé. Or ils ont le sentiment que l'Europe n'est pas un rempart
face à la mondialisation - pis, qu'elle en est parfois le cheval de Troie. Cette situation n'est pas soutenable.
L'Europe doit répondre aux attentes des Européens. Elle seule a la masse critique pour assurer la couverture
des nouveaux risques nés de la mondialisation (Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Comment la gauche peut relancer
la construction européenne, Les Echos, 13 January 2006).
2. Political opportunity structures, party system dynamics and the public opinion
This overview of party elites’ discursive repertoires of globalisation, immigration and
immigration point to some similarities in the process of building political representations to
which partisan elites can have recourse under specific party system constraints and/or
windows of opportunity in the electoral arena. Attitudes shall be regarded not only as preexisting cognitive filters of socio-political reality or particular sets of ideological preferences
and beliefs, but also as a vehicle for strategic mass mobilisation in the first order arena of
electoral politics. In France, representations of European integration for instance have long
been distorted by interfering issues arising from the dynamics of party competition over the
domestic agenda (Evans, 2003), as was particularly evident from the successive sets of
European ballots in 1994, 1999 and 2004, which all complied with the classical second-order
mid-term election model (Reif & Schmitt, 1980). To a large extent, the political debate over
Europe is highly contingent to tactical manoeuvring amongst national political elites.
In this second section, we would like to suggest a number of hypotheses pertaining to some
relevant elements of stability and change in the dynamics of French politics, which can help
account for the above discursive constructions of globalisation, immigration or European
integration amongst partisan elites. The conceptual framework here is based upon the classic
notion of ‘political opportunity structure’ borrowed from the analysis of social movements
(see in particular Kitschelt, 1986), although the POS concept here is apprehended in a much
broader sense as ‘the features of a political system that can explain the different action
repertoires’ (Van der Heijden, 2006; Meyer & Minkoff, 2004). This broadly conceptualised
notion of POS can be disaggregated into the structural element –let us say some important
cultural and institutional variables–, the dynamics of party competition and electoral politics,
as well as the public opinion dimension and how social demands are politically engineered.
13
Social identities, cultural values and political tradition
Although not the main focus of this paper, the above analysis of partisan elites repertoires
points to a number of relevant structural elements in French politics. Clearly, the persistence
of the old tradition of France’s post-war dirigisme, political voluntarism and Colbertist State
intervention in the political economy is of particular significance to the present analysis as it
continues to imprint policy referentials of increasingly ‘cartelised’ (Katz & Mair, 1995)
parties of both the mainstream left and the Gaullist right. In general cultural terms, the
challenges posed to this traditional nation state-centred perspective by international and
global issues such as those involved here are also clearly at the level of the country’s
perception of its own power and status within the international community. One could argue
that France has undergone a ‘Copernican revolution’ over the recent years, that is a significant
shift away from the mostly geocentric model –with France at its centre– and the re-evaluation
of the nation’s influence and role at international level, particularly within the post-2004
enlarged EU. Ironically, one key argument of the mainstream Yes camp in the ECTreferendum campaign was the painful admission of France’s powerlessness and incapacity to
impose a new Treaty –the so-called B plan of the No supporters– to its European partners.
Second, as a correlate of the above considerations on the role of the State, one must stress the
critical contribution by national welfare policies in establishing and maintaining electoral
loyalties. Access to national resources and the redistributive capacity by mainstream parties to
deliver a wide range of public goods, services and welfare provisions were central elements in
post-war France; welfare measures have been used over recent years to soften the impact of
deregulation and market-oriented reforms, and provide social protections for those affected by
liberalisation (Levy, 2000; Béland & Hansen, 2000).
Lastly, the analysis should point to the institutional logics in the existing patterns of party
competition and co-operation, the strong disproportional element in the manufacturing of
parliamentary majorities in legislative elections and the lack of national coalition potential by
protest parties at the fringes of the political system. One important consequence of this
closedness of the party system and containment of peripheral actors outside of the
governmental and parliamentary arenas is the reinforcement of their uninhibited ability to
mobilise political resentment and anti-elite discontent through populist anti-establishment
appeal and, as shall be discussed, the demagogic framing of unrealistic social demands in the
electorate. Since the mid-1980s, the impact of protest parties has been refinforced by the
alternation of proportional representation with the traditional two-ballot majority system in
the electoral agenda, the opening of windows of political opportunities in second-order
elections and the consequent ‘proportionalisation’ of electoral preferences (Parodi, 1997).
Party system dynamics and electoral competition
Looking at the dynamics of the national party system points of course to the core vs periphery
line of division in party competition, which forms a key element in understanding the specific
dynamics of contemporary French electoral politics. The two successive political tremors of
the 2002 presidential ballot and 2005 referendum on the European Constitutional Treaty were
testimonies to the salience of this cleavage, the increasing level of ideological polarisation and
party fragmentation, and the growing impact of electoral consolidation and institutionalisation
of anti-system parties on both ends of the political axis (Cole, 2003; Elgie, 2000; Grunberg,
Mayer & Sniderman, 2002; Cautrès & Mayer, 2004; Lewis-Beck, 2004; Perrineau & Ysmal,
14
2003; Perrineau, 2005). European integration can be considered a systemic issue based upon
this particular dimension. As constitutive elements in partisan discourses, we would argue that
European issues are ‘dormant’ in that they remain largely ignored in first-order electoral
politics and erupt sporadically under specific political opportunity structures such as
European referenda (Maastricht in 1992 and ECT in 2005) or the five successive sets of
European elections that took place between 1979 and 2004, which all cast off the strong
institutional bipolar dynamics of the majoritarian two-ballot electoral system.
With regard to the manufacturing of partisan attitudes of immigration, globalisation and
European integration, the development of anti-system actors outside mainstream politics has
two main implications. First, the rise of populist anti-establishment parties makes a significant
contribution to the promotion of state-led measures and places a strong emphasis on state
interventionism in the political economy and social welfare policy, particularly with regard to
deriving the most ‘appropriate’ responses to the challenges of economic globalisation. The
statist element is of course inherent in the ideology of national sovereignty of parties such as
the MPF or FN and their comparable rhetoric of the need for the country to regain control
over the political economy, but one could argue that it has also become increasingly central to
the anti-globalisation discourses by the radical left together with the incorporation of the
‘alter-mondialiste’ call for the regulation of capitalism at the international level: see for
instance some of the key measures promoted by the LCR Trotskyites such as the
requisitioning by the State of private companies in case of redundancy, the universal 100%
coverage by social security benefits or the nationalisation of drug companies and renationalisations of all former state monopoles.
Second the process of ideological polarisation can be considered a twofold phenomenon at
stake on both the ‘old’ and ‘new’ politics axes of competition. On the general libertarianauthoritarian continuum, which we regard here as characteristic of the ‘new politics’ line of
cleavage, polarisation follows for the essential a linear pattern, with party elites being more
‘evenly’ distributed across the axis on issues such as immigration, law and order or national
identity, despite a clear shift of the centre of gravity towards the right end of the continuum
over the recent years. On the old politics axis, on the contrary, and this is particularly true of
party elites’ attitudes towards globalisation, the process of ideological polarisation has
become increasingly non-linear U-shaped in its format. This is mostly due to the ideological
conversion by populist right-wing anti-system actors to a virulent anti-globalisation and anticapitalist stance which resembles in many respects that of the far left. The post-liberal
aggiornamento of the FN dates back to the mid-1990s and has since been central to Le Pen’s
party re-positioning within the system in a more systematic attempt at appealing to left-wing
defectors (Ivaldi, 2003). Interestingly, the building of an ‘alter-nationalist’ front is very likely
to become a key element in the party strategy in 2007 and was recently echoed by the FN’s
ambivalent, to say the least, attitude towards the CPE and reluctance to support overtly the
liberal logics of labour market flexibility in the new contract. Similarly, the endorsement by
the MPF of anti-globalisation themes was well in evidence in the 2005 referendum campaign,
together with the party’s radical shift towards anti-system xenophobic populism breaking
further away from mainstream inclusion and the liberal-conservative family where Villiers
originated.
15
The political framing of social demands and the public opinion
As suggested above, one particularly significant aspect of party attitudes towards European
integration and the political construction of Europe as an exogenous system of constraints or
an agent of international market capitalism is the process of periphery ideological framing of
mainstream party representations. A similar conclusion applies to immigration and
globalisation which were originally proprietary issues of the extreme right and extreme left
respectively. Globalisation was pushed to the forefront of the national political agenda in the
late 1990s by a number of protest peripheral organisations and social movements such as
ATTAC or the Confédération Paysanne (Ancelovici, 2002; Martin, 2000; Bruneau, 2004).
The alter-mondialiste agenda has since occupied the realm of the country’s economic debate
around the anti-capitalist and anti-globalisation line of opposition to the OECD Multilateral
Agreement on Investment negotiation and, subsequently the WTO pro-market stance
(Agrikoliansky et al, 2005; Sommier, 2003). For their part, immigration issues gained
political prominence in the mid-1980s mainly as a consequence of the rise and
institutionalisation of the Front national whose influence on policy preference and elite
decision making became evident in the restrictiveness of immigration laws implemented by
the mainstream Right (Schain, 1996; Van Der Brug & Fennema, 2003; Hansen & Koehler,
2005).
The impact of the repertoires of immigration, globalisation or European integration by
peripheral protest actors is clearly discernible in the structuring of public attitudes. Public
opinion data point for instance to the negative consensual perception of economic
globalisation in France, with 58 per cent perceiving ‘globalisation as a threat to employment
and companies’, that is the highest rate of negative representation far above the EU-15
average of 35 per cent (FLASH EB N°151b October 2003), a level comparable to the 52 per
cent saying that they ‘fear globalisation’ in December 2005 (Libération-BVA, 12.12.2005).
No less than 61 per cent of the French have a ‘negative’ perception of ‘capitalism’
(Libération-LH2, 4 November 2005). Looking at trends in public attitudes since the late
1990s shows a significant increase in the overall proportion of negative perceptions of
globalisation (see Table below).
Table 2. Trends in public perception of economic globalisation in France (1998-2005)
% ‘globalisation is a bad thing for…’
French consumers
French companies
Someone like you
Country’s public services
Population’s standard of living
French employees
Jobs in France
1998
29
25
34
N.A.
36
46
43
2003
2005
42
44
44
43
50
58
66
47
47
50
51
62
64
65
Sources : 1998: CSA-Challenges-France Inter, October 1998; 2003: CSA-L’Humanité, 27-28 August 2003; 2005: CSAChallenges, 7-8 December 2005
The vote in the ECT-referendum revealed the popular impact of the third repertoire of
Europeanisation based upon a negative performance assessment of the EU model of social
governance: for 46 per cent of the voters, ‘the Treaty would aggravate unemployment in
France’ and was ‘too liberal’ for another 34 per cent (TNS-SOFRES, RTL-TF1-Le Monde, 29
May 2005). Fifty-three percent of those interviewed by CSA expressed their ‘worries’ about
the social impact of European integration (CSA Exit-poll survey, 29 May 2005). Looking at
16
the specific reasons given by the naysayers to account for their vote, the ‘negative effects of
the European Constitution on the employment situation in France’, the ‘level of
unemployment and weakness of the economy’ and the ‘too liberal free-market nature of the
draft’ were cited as the first three motives for rejecting the Treaty (Flash Eurobarometer 171,
30/31 May 2005). Lastly, a large proportion (63 per cent) of the French continue to think that
‘there are too many immigrants in France’ (TNS-SOFRES, Le Monde-RTL, 7-8 December
2005). Interestingly, the combination of a hard exclusionist stance with a more inclusionist
approach –which lies at the heart of the UMP strategy on immigration since 2002– is
supported by a majority as revealed, among the many polls published on that particular set of
issues, by the survey conducted in May 2003 by IPSOS (see table below).
Table 3. Public attitudes towards immigration (2003)
Exclusion
Inclusion
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
57% against regularising all illegal immigrants
59% for immigration quotas
58% in support of banning Islamic veil in schools
78% for taking immigrants’ fingerprints when delivering
visas
73% fight against paper marriages
72% for reinforcing controls over short-term stay permits
56% in favour of extending periods of retention prior to
deportation
53% in favour of extending trial periods before granting
residency permits
•
•
61% in favour of voting rights in local elections for nonEU foreigners established in France for over 10 years
49% for building mosques in French cities
68% to soften the implementation of the so-called
‘double sentence’ for the expulsion of foreigners
Source: IPSOS-LCI-Le Point, 15 March 2003
Of particular significance here is the resonance of the radical rhetorics of anti-system actors in
some of the discursive repertoires deployed by dominant parties, and the consequent
bestowing of political respectability and credibility upon fringe actors, be it because of
manoeuvring and conciliatory attitudes, or tactical accommodation of radical ideology such as
for instance the re-appropriation by the mainstream right of part of the FN’s agenda on the
salient issues of immigration and law-and-order throughout the 1980s and 1990s (Ivaldi,
2006b) or the more recent attempt by socialist leaders (Fabius, Mélenchon) to establish links
with the far left. More generally, parties of government are confronted with the amplificatory
and distorsive effect of exaggeration and over-simplification in the dialectics of anti-system
actors. These particular processes were well in evidence in the 2005 referendum on the ECT:
for example, the mainstream socialists’ call for a more social Europe –which was
accompanied with a number of sound proposals to protect more effectively the European
social model and develop a ‘Welfare Europe’– was almost made inaudible because of the
ideological escalation by left-wing leaders of the No in fustigating the process of social
deregulation within the EU.
That governmental actors have become more susceptible to the sirens of political demagogy
by protest competitors is of course an indication of the increasing ‘vulnerability’ of
mainstream parties (Bartolini, 2002), which emerges from the almost mechanical replication
of the anti-incumbency pattern in both national and second order elections since 1981, at
times in the form of landslide out of hand voting out of parties in office (e.g. the legislative
elections of 1993 and 2002 or the 2004 regional contest). To some extent, the deficit of policy
responsiveness and the inability by mainstream actors to deliver effectively on the ever more
salient issues of unemployment and job insecurity has made it increasingly difficult for parties
of government to objectify socio-economic policy choices, the record of Jospin’s term in
17
office being perhaps one notable exception and the recent U-turn by Villepin’s government on
the CPE one good example of party sensitivity to popular concerns and demands. This lack of
political opportunity for transformative policy narratives is not of course totally independent
from the high level of intra-party factionalism and rivalry, the tactical manoeuvring by
partisan elites in first order politics and the bitter competition entailed within each political
camp by the growing personalisation of electoral politics in the specific context of French
presidentialism.
Notwithstanding the actual performances of parties in government, such fragility and
difficulty by mainstream parties in articulating transformative policy discourses is also a clear
consequence of the de-legitimising narratives of ‘irresponsiveness’ and the blurring of
differences in policy preferences by anti-system actors on both fringes of the political
spectrum through the process of ‘de-differentiation’ and the ‘recoding of the universe of
political actors as a homogeneous political class’ (Schedler, 1996, p.295) (e.g. the polemical
imagery of ‘bande des quatre’ (FN), the ‘pro-globalisation and socialist UMPS system’
(MPF) or ‘the devastating effects of 30 years of neo-liberal policies’ (LCR)). Even more
importantly, the political communication by anti-system actors, besides imposing this
reductionist framework upon the perceptive assessment of policy styles and choices by
dominant parties, has played a crucial role in ‘stretching’ further the scope for political
possibility by promoting a number of unrealistic demands amongst citizens. Albeit
contextually different, we would argue that this process is to some extent comparable to that
of ‘inconsistencies or outright contradictions among relevant beliefs held by citizens [and
their] unrealistic expectations concerning the extent to which parties can achieve a series of
demanding objectives’ identified by Linz in his study of anti-party sentiments and attitudes
towards political parties in Spain and Latin America (Linz, 2002). Rhetorics such as the ‘zero
immigration’ or ‘national preference’ themes publicised by actors of the right-wing nationalist
camp or the claim to obtain from all France’s partners within the EU the drafting of a more
protective and socially oriented European Constitutional Treaty, which was entailed in the socalled B-Plan of the naysayers in the 2005 referendum, illustrate this process of setting
unachievable objectives for parties of government whilst simultaneously fuelling unrealistic
expectations in the general public.
As explained by Linz, party criticism often ‘reflects ambiguous, confusing, or even selfcontradictory evaluations by citizens based upon (…) a lack of understanding of the
complexities and cross-pressures that parties are subjected to in performing their many roles
in democratic politics’. A brief overflight of recent French public opinion data on general
attitudes towards key socio-economic issues shows some evidence of the coexistence within
public opinion of that sort of contradictory demands and evaluations, with for instance the
majority call for a reduction in public spending together with claims for an increase in social
minima (SMIC, RMI) or the improvement of education in schools or universities (see Table
below).
Table 4. Public opinion and socio-economic reform in France: priority areas (December 2005)
Improve education in schools
Reduce public spending
Increase social minima (SMIC, RMI)
Improve universities
A more flexible labour market regulation
Suppress Taxes on Wealth (ISF)
Main
priority
67
61
52
51
30
16
Important
reform
27
25
34
36
38
16
Source: CSA-Challenges, 7-8 December 2005
18
Secondary
5
12
12
11
29
64
DK
1
2
2
2
3
4
Similarly, the problematisation by the radical left of private company lay-offs as a highly
sensitive political issue provides another very good example of the progressive incorporation
within the space for legitimate public debate of socio-economic proposals and policy
orientations which would go far beyond the actual margins of manoeuvre in the political
economy by governmental elites, and how such process of ideological ‘escalation’ might
contribute in fine to undermine notable transformative policy efforts by mainstream parties to
effectively tackle the issue of potentially abusive or unjustified redundancies. This was well
exemplified by the parliamentary and public debates on Jospin’s Bill on Social Modernisation
in 2001/2002 and the PS-PC dispute within the Plural Left over measures which would
prevent companies that make a profit from laying workers off. This has since then become a
key element in the political agenda by the extreme Left as illustrated recently by the LCR
programme to forbid all lay-offs –be they individual or collective–, the obligation for
companies to derive mutual resources to provide jobs and maintain productive activity in
declining sectors of the economy, the legal guarantee for all employees to avail of a stable
full-time job, or the outlawing of part-time contracts that are imposed upon workers (LCR 10
Emergency proposals for an anti-capitalist policy, January 2005). At discursive level, this has
been encapsulated into a broader negative perception of French capitalism embodied in the
rhetorical figure of the profound incompatibility between record stock market profits by the
national top forty corporations (CAC 40) and the general situation of unemployment in
France, whose constitutive elements subsequently colonised some of the political narratives
by the socialist party of alternative measures to the ‘neo-liberal economics’ of the UMP –see
for instance Martine Aubry’s recurrent and almost mythified evocation of Jean Gandois or
Antoine Riboud’s employment capitalism. This was also illustrated for instance by the PS
proposal to ‘impose financial efforts upon companies which lay workers off for financial
reasons under the pressure of their stockholders’ (Le Mans party congress synthesis,
November 2005) in line with a 79 per cent support in public opinion for taxing lay-offs by
companies that make a profit (CSA-Challenges, 7-8 December 2005).
Conclusion
Consistent with an unfailing trend in French politics, the partly new line of division over
Europe that arose from the spatial re-distribution of partisan elites across the Yes and No
camps in May 2005 was soon absorbed into the specific dynamics of national politics and
vanished into the thin air of domestic party competition with all political leaders’ minds set
already on the 2007 presidential ballot. Such fleeting publicisation of European integration is
in sharp contrast with the enduring articulation of economic globalisation and, even more
predominantly, immigration with the most salient issues within the first-order electoral arena,
which are central to public debate and co-ordinate core elements in patterns of inter-party
competition and voters’ preferences (Grunberg et Schweisguth, 2003; Andersen & Evans,
2003).
At the level of party competition, one major issue of the forthcoming electoral sequence of
2007 will be of course whether or not the reshuffling of the party system that took place in the
ECT-referendum issue will subsist and significantly impact on the domestic political agenda.
European issues tend generally to be absorbed into the political parties’ national agenda if not
simply carefully avoided by mainstream actors when the time comes to appeal to voters in
first-order ballots. In 2005, however, the opposition over Europe was more closely articulated
19
with the classic left-right axis of electoral competition over traditional social and economic
issues and should therefore be more easily transposable into the domestic arena in 2007. In
more general terms of partisan discursive repertoires, a number of questions arise from the
most recent developments in French politics, the transition towards the post-Chirac era and
whether or not the space for ‘transformative’ policy narratives will significantly increase in
2007.
References
Agrikoliansky, E., Fillieule, O., Mayer, N. (2005) L'altermondialisme en France : La longue histoire d'une
nouvelle cause, Paris, Flammarion
Ancelovici, M. (2002) ‘Organizing Against Globalisation: the case of Attac in France’, Politics and Society, vol.
3, September
Andersen, R. and J.A. Evans (2003) ‘Values, Cleavages and Party Choice in France, 1988–1995’, French
Politics, 1, pp.83-114
Baker D., Gamble, A. and D. Seawright (2002) ‘Sovereign nations and global markets: modern British
Conservatism and hyperglobalism’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol. 4, N°3,
October, pp. 399-428
Bartolini, S. (2002) ‘Electoral and Party Competition: Analytical Dimensions and Theoretical Problems’ in
Gunther, R., Montero, J.R. and J.Linz (eds), Political Parties. Old Concepts and New Challenges. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, Comparative Politics, pp. 84-110
Béland, D. and R. Hansen (2000) ‘Reforming the French Welfare State: Solidarity, Social Exclusion and the
Three Crises of Citizenship’, West European Politics, Vol.23, N° 1, 2000, pp.47-64
Belot. C. and B. Cautrès (2004) ‘L’Europe, invisible mais omniprésente’, in B. Cautrès and N. Mayer (eds.) Le
nouveau désordre électoral. Les leçons du 21 avril 2002, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, pp. 119-141
Berger, S. (2000) ‘Globalization and Politics’, Annual Review of Political Science, 3: pp.43–62.
Bergounioux A. and G. Grunberg (2005) Le Long Remords du pouvoir. Un siècle de Parti socialiste (19052005), Paris, Fayard
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boy, D. et al. (2003), C’était la gauche plurielle, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po
Bruneau, I. (2004) ‘La Confédération paysanne et le « mouvement altermondialisation ». L'international comme
enjeu syndical’, Politix, n° 68, pp.111-134
Buller, J. and A. Gamble (2002) ‘Conceptualising Europeanisation’ Public Policy and Administration, Vo. 17,
n°2, pp.4-24
Campbell, J.L. (2002) ‘Ideas, Politics, and Public Policy’ Annual Review of Sociology, 28, pp.21-38
Cautrès, C. and N. Mayer (eds.) (2004), Le nouveau désordre electoral. Les leçons du 21 avril 2002, Paris,
Presses de Sciences Po, Coll. Académique
Clift, B. (2002) “Social Democracy and Globalization: The Cases of France and the UK”, Government and
Opposition, Vol. 37, N°4, pp.466-500
Cohen, E. (1996) La tentation hexagonale: la souveraineté à l’épreuve de la mondialisation, Paris: Fayard
Cole, A. (2001) ‘National and Partisan Contexts of Europeanization: The Case of the French Socialists’, Journal
of Common Market Studies, Vol. 39, n°1, March, pp.15Cole, A. (2003) ‘Stress, strain and stability in the French party system’, in J. Evans (ed.) The French Party
System, Manchester, Manchester University Press, pp. 11-26.
Dean, H. (2003), ‘Discursive repertoires and the negociation of well-being: reflections on the WeD framework’,
WeD Working Paper 04, ESRC Research Group on Wellbeing in Developing Countries, September
Elgie, R. (2000) The Changing French Political System. London: Frank Cass
Evans, J.A. (2003) ‘Europe and the French party system’, in J.A. Evans (ed.) The French Party System:
Continuity and Change, Manchester, Manchester University Press, pp. 155-170
Fairclough, N. and P. Thomas (2004), “The globalization of discourse and the discourse of globalization” in D.
Grant et al (eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Discourse, London, Sage Publications, pp.379396
Featherstone, K. and C.M. Radaelli (2003) The Politics of Europeanization, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Foucault, M. (1977). History of systems of thought. In D. F. Bouchard (ed.), Language, Counter-Memory,
Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews by Michel Foucault. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp.
119-204
20
Givens, T. and A. Luedtke (2005) ‘European Immigration Policies in Comparative Perspective: Issue Salience,
Partisanship and Immigrant Rights’, Comparative European Politics, 3, pp.1-22
Grunberg, G., Mayer, N. and P. Sniderman (eds.) (2002), La démocratie à l’épreuve. Une nouvelle approche de
l’opinion des Français, Paris:Presses de Sciences Po
Grunberg, G., Schweisguth, E. (2003) ‘French Political Space: Two, Three or Four Blocs?’, French Politics, 1,
pp.331-347
Guiraudon, V. (2003) ‘The Constitution of a European Immigration Policy Domain: A Political Sociology
Approach’ Journal of European Policy, Vol.10, n°2, March, pp.263-282
Haegel, F. (2002) ‘L’UMP et la refondation des partis de droite’, in Revue française de science politique, OctDéc. vol. 52(5-6)
Hanley, D. (2001) ‘French political parties, globalisation and Europe’, Modern & Contemporary France, Vol.9,
n°3, pp.301-312
Hansen, R., Koehler, J. (2005) ‘Issue definition, political discourse and the politics of nationality reform in
France and Germany’, European Journal of Political Research, Volume 44, Issue 5, August, pp.623-644
Hay, C. and B. Rosamond (2002) ‘Globalisation, European Integration and the Discursive Construction of
Economic Imperatives’ Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.9, n°2, pp.147-167
Hix, S. and Goetz, K. (2000) ‘Introduction: European integration and national political systems’, West European
Politics, Vol.23, n°4, pp. 1–26
Howarth, D. (2002) ‘The European policy of the Jospin government: a new twist to old French games’ Modern
& Contemporary France, Vol. 10, N°3, August, pp.353-369
Huysmans, J. (2000) ‘The European Union and the Securitization of Migration’ Journal of Common Market
Studies, Vol. 38, N°5, December, pp.751-777
INSEE (2005) L'économie française, comptes et dossiers. Édition 2005 – 2006 by Patrick Aubert et Patrick
Sillard, Paris, June
Ivaldi, G. (2003) ‘The Front National split: party system change and electoral prospects’ in J.A. Evans (Ed.) The
French Party System: Continuity and Change, Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp.137-154
Ivaldi, G. (2005) ‘Les formations d'extrême-droite : Front national et Mouvement national républicain’ in P.
Bréchon, (ed.), Les partis politiques français, La Documentation Française, Collection « Les Etudes »
Ivaldi, G. (2006a) ‘Beyond France’s 2005 Referendum on the European Constitutional Treaty: Second-order
model, anti-Establishment attitudes and the end of the alternative European utopia’ West European
Politics, Vol .29, n°1, pp.47-69
Ivaldi, G. (2006b) ‘The Front national vis-à-vis power in France: factors of political isolation and performance
assessment of the Extreme Right in municipal office » in Delwit P. and P. Poirier (Eds.), Les Nouvelles
droites et le pouvoir, Bruxelles, Editions de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles, forthcoming
Jefferys, S. (2003) ‘Rebel France: Defending Republican Values’ French Politics, Vol. 1, pp.355-368
Kallestrup, M. (2002) ‘Europeanisation as a Discourse: Domestic Policy Legitimisation Through the Articulation
of a 'Need for Adaptation'’ Public Policy and Administration, 17 (2)
Katz, R.S. and P. Mair (1995), ‘Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy : the Emergence
of the Cartel Party’, Party Politics, Vol. 1, n°1, January, pp.5-28
Kitschelt, H. (1986) ‘Political opportunity structures and political protest: anti-nuclear movements in four
democracies’, British Journal of Political Science, Vol.16, N°1, pp.57-85
Korteweg, A.C. (2003) “Welfare Reform and the Subject of the Working Mother: ‘Get a Job, a Better Job, then a
Career’” Theory and Society, August, Vol. 32. No. 4, pp.445-480
Levy, J. (2000) ‘France: Directing Adjustment?’ in Scharpf, F. and V.A. Schmidt (eds.) Welfare and Work in the
Open Economy: Diverse Responses to Common Challenges, Oxford: Oxford University Press, II., pp.308350
Levy, J. (2001) ‘Partisan politics and welfare adjustment: the case of France’, Journal of European Public
Policy, Vol.8, N°2, April, pp.265-285
Lewis-Beck, M.S. (ed.) (2004) The French Voter: Before and After 2002, Basingstoke, Palgrave
Linz, Juan J. (2002) ‘Parties in Contemporary Democracies: Problems and Paradoxes’ in Gunther, R., Montero,
J.R. and J.Linz (eds), Political Parties. Old Concepts and New Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, Comparative Politics, pp. 291-361
Mair, P. (2006) ‘Political Parties and Party Systems’ Forthcoming in Graziano P. and M. Vink, (eds)
Europeanization: New Research Agendas. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Martin, J.-P. (2000) ‘La Confédération Paysanne et José Bové, des actions médiatiques au service d’un projet’,
Ruralia, juin, pp.151-180
Meunier S. (with P.H. Gordon) (2001), French Challenge: Adapting to Globalization, Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press
Meunier, S. (2003) ‘France’s Double-Talk on Globalization’ in French Politics, Culture and Society, Vol. 21,
N°1, Spring, pp. 20-34
21
Meunier, S. (2004) ‘Globalization and Europeanization: A Challenge to French Politics’ French Politics Vol. 2,
August, pp.125-150
Meyer D.S. and D. C. Minkoff (2004) ‘Conceptualizing Political Opportunity’, Social Forces, Vol.82, N°4,
June, pp.1457-1492
Moreno, L. and B. Palier (2004), ‘The Europeanization of welfare : Paradigm shifts and social policy reforms’,
Paper presented at the Welfare Reform and the Management of Societal Change (WRAMSOC)
Conference, 23-25 April, Berlin
Parodi, J.-L. (1997) ‘Proportionnalisation périodique, cohabitation, atomisation partisane: un triple défi pour le
régime semi-présidentiel de la Cinquième République’, Revue Française de Science Politique, Vol. 47,
N°3-4, pp.292-312
Perrineau P. and C. Ysmal (eds) (2003), Le vote de tous les refus, les élections présidentielle et législatives de
2002, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po
Perrineau, P. (ed.) (2005) Le vote européen, 2004-2005, de l’élargissement au référendum français, Paris,
Presses de Sciences Po
Reif K. and H. Schmitt (1980), ‘Nine Second Order National Elections: A Conceptual Framework for the
Analysis of European Election Results’, European Journal of Political Research, 8, pp. 3–44
Rey, H. (2004) La gauche et les classes populaires, histoire et actualité d'une mésentente, Paris, Editions La
Découverte
Schain, M.A. (1996) ‘The Immigration Debate and the National Front’ in Schain M.A., Keeler, J.T. (eds)
Chirac's Challenge: Liberalization, Europeanization and Malaise in France, edited by. New York: St.
Martin's Press, pp. 169-197
Schedler, A. (1996) ‘Anti-Political-Establishment Parties’, Party Politics, Vol. 2, N°3, pp.291-312
Schmidt, V.A. (2001) ‘The politics of economic adjustment in France and Britain: when does discourse matter?’,
Journal of European Public Policy, Vol.8, N°2, April, pp.247-264
Schmidt, V.A. (2002) The Futures of European Capitalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Sommier, I. (2003) Le renouveau des mouvements contestataires à l’heure de la mondialisation, Paris: Champs
Flammarion
Van Der Brug, W., Fennema, M. (2003) ‘Protest or mainstream? How the European anti-immigrant parties
developed into two separate groups by 1999’, European Journal of Political Research, Volume 42, Issue
1, January, pp.55-76
Van der Eijk, C. and M.N. Franklin (2004) ‘Potential for contestation on European matters at national elections
in Europe. In G. Marks and M.R. Steenbergen (eds) European Integration and Political Conflict.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 32-50
Van Der Heijden, H.A. (2006), ‘Globalization, Environmental Movements, and International Political
Opportunity Structures’, Organization & Environment, Vol. 19, N°1, pp.28-45
Wodak, R. and G.Weiss (2000) ‘Debating Europe. Globalisation Rhetoric and European Union Employment
Policies’ in Bellier, I. and T.M. Wilson (Eds.) An Anthropology of the European Union. Building,
Imaging and Experiencing the New Europe. Oxford/New York: Berg, pp.75-92
22